update_custom_field_options

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it declares this is a write operation, that it is admin-only, and that up to 50 options apply synchronously while larger sets go through an asynchronous bulk request. It omits whether the update merges or replaces existing options, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the write/admin warning, then ID-resolution steps, then the batching rule. No filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the admin-only plus sync/async details cover the operation's risk profile. The one thing an agent might still need, whether existing options are replaced or merged, is not addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value on top by explaining the lookup path for option IDs and the 50-item threshold that governs the options array. The custom_field_id parameter gets no extra semantics beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update dropdown options on a custom field') and is cleanly separable from the surrounding custom-field siblings (update_custom_field, create_custom_field_options, delete_custom_field_options). An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly routes the agent to list_custom_fields for the field ID and list_custom_field_options for option IDs, matching by name, which is exactly the precondition an agent needs. It does not state when to prefer create_custom_field_options or delete_custom_field_options instead, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.